Monday, January 31, 2011

It may fly in the face of our oversexed culture's conventional wisdom, but people who remain chaste before marriage have better marriages according to a number of measures. The Medical News reports:

A new study that appeared in the Journal of Family Psychology finds that couples who wait until exchanging vows to have sex are “are happier with the quality of sex” and enjoy a “stable, happier marriage”. The team of researchers assessed 2,035 married couples in an online questionnaire based study called ‘RELATE’.

The results showed that couples who waited until marriage to have sex rated sexual quality 15% higher than people who had premarital sex, rated relationship stability as 22% higher and rated satisfaction with their relationships 20% higher.

The study controlled for religiosity and found, “Regardless of religiosity, waiting helps the relationship form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction.” So the study seems pretty solid. There's always room for criticism though, The Economist notes:

Unfortunately, Dr Busby’s method cannot distinguish the cause of this. It could be, as many moralists preach, that the delay itself is improving. It could, though, be that the sort of people who are happy to delay having sex are also better at relationships. Correlation, in other words, rather than causation. That is material for another study.

That criticism is valid enough I suppose. Can't rule out selection bias. BUT if you're a young person getting into a relationship and considering marriage, choosing a mate is very much about selection bias. And no matter the reason why, the results are clear: if you and your partner can stay chaste you're marriage will be happier for it.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

It's a little late to be plugging the movie now that it's been running for 6 weeks and has dropped out of the top 10, but the Voyage of the Dawn Treader is an excellent movie. The casting is excellent. The new character Eustace is extremely convincing. It was probably more faithful to the book than the previous 2 movies. I think it's my favourite Narnia movie so far even though I would have ranked the book in the middle or toward the end of the pack. If you get a chance it's definitely worth seeing in the Theatre. I plan on owning the DVD.

"It makes no sense that Mr. Lusk could be acquitted in a Quebec court and then found liable for moral and punitive damages in front of a human rights tribunal," Mr. Angers said. "These tribunals are just in another world."

That's a pretty good summary of the situation after the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal fined a man $12,000 for saying a bad word:

The case against Mr. Lusk, a retired lieutenant colonel of the Canadian Forces, stems from an April 2004, incident in which Mr. Thibault is alleged to have driven recklessly down their street in the Montreal suburb of Pointe Claire while neighbourhood children, including Mr. Lusk's son, were playing road hockey.

A witness testified that Mr. Thibault had run a stop sign and driven at high speed toward one of the kids, nearly hitting the child. . . When Mr. Lusk heard about the latest encounter with Mr. Thibault, he decided to take the matter up with his neighbours.

Messrs. Thibault and Wouters allege Mr. Lusk showed up at their home yelling and hitting their metal gate, an accusation Mr. Lusk steadfastly denies. The couple said Mr. Lusk accused Mr. Wouters, who had not been in the car, of driving dangerously and endangering the lives of his children, calling him a "f---ing faggot." . . .

Police also charged him with assault and uttering death threats, but he was later acquitted.

Still, the Human Rights Tribunal, using surveillance footage of the encounter captured by cameras Messrs. Thibault and Wouters had installed on their home, ruled "by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant, by his behaviour, his comments and his attitude, has violated the rights of the plaintiffs, on the basis of their sexual orientation."

I really don't know where to start. This is a grave injustice. First it was a matter between neighbours. It's pretty common for neighbours to have disagreements, and it is a father's responsibility to protect his children. I can't imagine the police treating this type of complaint seriously under any other circumstances.

Second Mr Lusk was acquitted of all charges related to the incident. We have a constitutional right not to be tried twice for the same crime so the Human Rights tribunal seems to be tramping all over Mr Lusk's rights.

Finally, I came across the story via a comment on my last post about the disturbing pace our rights are being eroded in the name of 'human rights.' That post referenced a court ruling that marriage commissionerscannot op out of performing marriage ceremonies for same sex couples and the silly censorship of the 1980s hit song Money for Nothing. That makes 3 decisions in one week that tramped on the rights of individuals in favour of the gay lobby.

I suppose now is the time for a disclaimer. I have nothing against gays individually or as a community, but when our basic rights are trampled on to appease a vocal minority we must stand up to protect them.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

First things first: Faggot, Faggot, Faggot. Take that you silly censors!

The ridiculous ruling by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to ban the original version of Dire Strait's hit song 'Money for Nothing' is part of a very disturbing trend this week. It follows a decision earlier this week by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that concluded marriage commissioners have no right to refuse to marry same sex couples.

In neither case are the rights of homosexuals harmed or challenged, but in both cases the rights of others are seriously threatened. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Conscience are fundamental to democracy, both have been harmed this week.

Fortunately, many Canadians are willing to stand up to the censorship decision. Q104 Halifax and K97 Edmonton are both publicly defying the ruling by playing the song, in their report, the Toronto Sun helpfully published contact information to complain to the CBSC. Anyone can contact the CBSC national chair Ronald Cohen at ron.cohen@cbsc.ca or 1 (866) 696-4718. I definitely plan on doing that, but I wish it were as easy to fight the Saskatchewan decision on conscience rights, because I think that's more serious.

Monday, January 03, 2011

Patton Oswalt is deliberately offensive in this video implying that anyone who takes their faith seriously might as well believe in 'sky cake.' His athiest fans love it and if you're not offended too easily it's kinda funny:

The interesting thing to me though is that it actually makes a pretty profound point. Right of the top he says, "if we didn’t have﻿ religion we wouldn’t be here by now . . . there’d be no civilization."

I don't think I could have said it much better. Maybe his athiest fans can take note the next time they try to remove any reference to God from the public sphere.

On the 10th day of Christmas, I finally caved and wrote a post lamenting corporate crimes against Christmas.

There's the standard 'happy holidays' or 'holiday lighting' phrases that just drive me crazy as they seemingly attempt to deny that we are even celebrating Christmas. I've spent more energy than I want to ranting against this lunacy. All I did this year was try to give some preference to stores that mentioned Christmas. (It was handy that many individual Tim Horton's franchises had Merry Christmas written all over their windows.)

This year's major crime against Christmas came from Shoppers' Drug Mart. They are the dominant pharmacy around these parts, much like Walgreen's in the US. Many Shoppers' stores were open on Christmas Day. If your family doctor is closed, I don't see the reason why the pharmacy needs to be open especially since you usually get at least a week's worth of prescription medicine at one time. Besides, the stores also feature cosmetics, photo finishing, gifts, and a grocery section. It's hard to imagine why other major retailers wouldn't argue if Shopper's can open, we must too.

It's a tragedy that so many of that company's employees needlessly worked on Christmas Day. It's also very easy to imagine other retail employees following suit. It was only a few years ago when every store in Ontario was closed for Boxing Day (Dec 26) as well as Christmas day.

Retailers are best advised to remember that time off at Christmas facilitates the gift giving that makes the season so profitable for retailers. If they decide to open en masse then there will be less people available for Christmas day gift exchanges and less gifts exchanged.

My advice to retailers is stay closed on Christmas Day, but if you do open it is at your own peril.